Skip to main content

CAE5 posted:
Linz posted:
Dorsai posted:

I think a frog gig is probably the best tool for pinning a snake you intend to kill.  The long shaft gives you reach, and the spread of barbs betters the probability of a successful strike, especially when they are moving fast.  Much better than a single blade/point.  

https://www.cabelas.com/produc...BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

Ummm...you guys hunt/eat frogs so much you have specialist tools for the job?

Good Lord- what is happening over there?

I used to go frog gigging a lot when I was a kid. Along with coon hunting, good excuse to stay out all night.

Linz. do y'all eat crocs? If they're as good as gator...

Well, croc is a protected species because...reasons.

Farmed mud gecko is available as meat but a bit bland compared to the wild harvested meat.

You might be closer than you think...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/ru...of-us-market/8226904

Linz posted:
SPDSNYPR posted:

I don’t think we have one single bayonet at the PD. Obviously I’m a bad person. 

 

Well, one of those nice KCB77 long jobs on the end of a M4 might do:

 

But for pinning/cutting/tossing....

 

I speculate that Dorsai can steer and school you re service of such suitable for spooking, securing, slicing & slinging  significant slithering succulent  serpents,  squirming though they might be.

Or not.

Was hoping to provoke a alliteration wave.

Being totally illiterate about swords, I wonder if dudes sat around and discussed controversies such as appendix carry (you'll cut your bollocks off kid), how to carry your j frame sticker,  gamers, and the cool kid's race swords?

It would seem, not knowing anything about this, that many of the sword designs dictate a specific fighting style, while something like the Viking sword was nimble and more of a general purpose stabber.   

Surely, someone has done a study on this?   Any books known on this subject?

Scholagladiatoria is probably the best source for sword knowledge.  https://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria

The "Viking" sword pattern was common throughout Northern Europe.  Other than some styling, it was the pattern used by Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, etc.  Also, "Viking" wasn't a people, it was an activity.  They were Norse, Dane, Swede, etc.  When they went raiding, aka a Viking, then they were Vikings.  Farming, fishing, trading, etc. at home is not "Viking".

Briefly, they didn't use the point very much.  Most of the time, the tip was more rounded and they were cutting swords.  They were (almost) always used with a shield, and using a shield properly is an art in itself.  The "Viking" shield wasn't strapped to the arm, it was held in by a handle in the center.  The boss that you see from the front is hollow and protects the hand.  Shields were disposable and usually did not have a metal rim the way you see a lot of reproductions.  The rim protects the shield against damage, but an unrimmed shield can do a good job of immobilizing a sword or axe that gets wedged in the wood.  Because of the center boss hold, the shield could be projected out away from the body to provide a lot of protection.  Consequently, a lot of skeletons show evidence of wounds to the lower leg (left most often) where they were cut under the shield.  They didn't parry with the sword if they could use a shield.  Sword against sword often resulted in edge damage.

Swords get a lot of attention because they were status weapons and Hollywood, but for most of the period in which swords were used, they were actually secondary to spears, bows and polearms.  The Vikings used bows, but spears were more common and were the first weapon used, and after it was lost, damaged or broken, they would transition to sword or axe.

Dorsai beat me to it. The spear has been the primary weapon for infantry for millennia. The 2 foot bayonet craze up till WW2 was the last of it because even then, ppl didn't quite trust not having a way to stab fuckers from long range. 

For the Norse, the multipurpose bearded axe was just as popular as the only one use sword... the seax (which the Saxons get their name from) could substitute for a sword in a shield wall, as well as having other uses. 

Think of the seax as a Glock 19 and sword as a suppressed RMR equipped STI 2011. One is a bit more specialized.

Later on as plate armor became common,  warhammers and maces got popular along with estocs/tucks to go after the weaknesses of plate.

Something else that you need to keep in mind if you are thinking historical rather than Hollywood.  Sword and shield were carried (and used!) when you meant to get in a fight.  People didn't walk around doing every day shit wearing a sword and carrying a shield or spear.  They didn't wear mail all the time either.  A Seax or other knife was common.

Unless it was a duel (Holmgang), individual combat like you see in movies was not as common.  You were with a band or larger groups and armies.  They formed lines, shield walls, and tried to maintain a formation.  In movies, they have a line, but as soon as contact is made, or just before, the line melts, and you have this wild melee of intermixed individuals.  That wasn't the historical intent.  That happened when everything went wrong.  You tried to keep your enemy in front, and didn't give them gaps so you got chopped from behind.  Until the late middle ages, an army didn't have anything approaching a uniform or distinctive colors, etc.  They do it in Hollywood so you can tell the good guys from the bad guys, but in reality, if it was Viking against Saxon, or Frank, they were really pretty similar.  Unless your group was fairly small and you knew everyone by sight, with our without a helmet obscuring their face, you friends looked pretty much the same as your enemies...unless they were on YOUR side of the line.  So you kept a line as much as possible.  When things were going badly, or you were outlined, you might end up in a circle.  Enemy on the outside, shield wall circle on your side.

In war, most of the casualties didn't occur in the press of the lines.  It happened when a line was broken or penetrated and you had enemies in your rear.  That was when the line broke into small groups or people started running.  Spearing a man in the back who was running away was much easier than when he was facing you with another fighter on either side.  Cavalry did their best killing when they were pursuing a broken enemy that was trying to run away.

Since Viking meant raiding, they were primarily interested in loot.  Churches and monasteries had the gold and silver, so they were prime targets.  Reach the shore at night, or somewhere isolated.  Kill everyone you meet immediately who might give warning.  Get horses if possible.  Attack the village, church or monastery in the morning when gates were opened.  They tried to hit hard and fast, against people who were unarmed (except for knives), unorganized and surprised.  Grab loot, women and/or others who would make good slaves, and get out.  They tried to avoid organized forces because that wasn't profitable.  It was different when they were intending to take territory and stay.  Which was the Danish and Norwegian invasions of Northern England, Scotland, the Islands and Ireland.  Then they landed a lot more ships, took territory, built forts and faced armies that were largely the same.

Dorsai posted:

Something else that you need to keep in mind if you are thinking historical rather than Hollywood.  Sword and shield were carried (and used!) when you meant to get in a fight.  People didn't walk around doing every day shit wearing a sword and carrying a shield or spear.  They didn't wear mail all the time either.  A Seax or other knife was common.

Unless it was a duel (Holmgang), individual combat like you see in movies was not as common.  You were with a band or larger groups and armies.  They formed lines, shield walls, and tried to maintain a formation.  In movies, they have a line, but as soon as contact is made, or just before, the line melts, and you have this wild melee of intermixed individuals.  That wasn't the historical intent.  That happened when everything went wrong.  You tried to keep your enemy in front, and didn't give them gaps so you got chopped from behind.  Until the late middle ages, an army didn't have anything approaching a uniform or distinctive colors, etc.  They do it in Hollywood so you can tell the good guys from the bad guys, but in reality, if it was Viking against Saxon, or Frank, they were really pretty similar.  Unless your group was fairly small and you knew everyone by sight, with our without a helmet obscuring their face, you friends looked pretty much the same as your enemies...unless they were on YOUR side of the line.  So you kept a line as much as possible.  When things were going badly, or you were outlined, you might end up in a circle.  Enemy on the outside, shield wall circle on your side.

In war, most of the casualties didn't occur in the press of the lines.  It happened when a line was broken or penetrated and you had enemies in your rear.  That was when the line broke into small groups or people started running.  Spearing a man in the back who was running away was much easier than when he was facing you with another fighter on either side.  Cavalry did their best killing when they were pursuing a broken enemy that was trying to run away.

Since Viking meant raiding, they were primarily interested in loot.  Churches and monasteries had the gold and silver, so they were prime targets.  Reach the shore at night, or somewhere isolated.  Kill everyone you meet immediately who might give warning.  Get horses if possible.  Attack the village, church or monastery in the morning when gates were opened.  They tried to hit hard and fast, against people who were unarmed (except for knives), unorganized and surprised.  Grab loot, women and/or others who would make good slaves, and get out.  They tried to avoid organized forces because that wasn't profitable.  It was different when they were intending to take territory and stay.  Which was the Danish and Norwegian invasions of Northern England, Scotland, the Islands and Ireland.  Then they landed a lot more ships, took territory, built forts and faced armies that were largely the same.

So 'Vikings' (series) was no so bad accuracy wise?

The Norse, whether they were aViking or not, didn't run around wearing furs, woven leather tunics, shaved heads, tattoos, leather armor, bits and pieces of mail, etc.  There was also no mystery or new found technology to get to England.  Everyone on the coast of the North Sea knew where England was.  So that was a bunch of bullshit.  Julius Caesar knew it was there, he invaded it 800 years earlier.  The Romans occupied southern Britain for roughly 400 years.  The Angles, Saxons and Frisians didn't start raiding when the Romans left, they'd been doing it for hundreds of years.  Everyone knew it was there.  But yeah, the monastic parchment that said, "Deliver us O Lord, from the fury of the Northmen" was accurate. 

MAC19D posted:

Stop it you guys.  Really.  Shit.  

You bunch of fuckers have cost me thousands of dollars over the years.  Now, it's swords. 

Jeez what next....stealth fighters?  

 

Sigh.  I have a really nice Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk111* dated 1918.  I have the short P1943 "jungle" bayonet that was introduced in WWII, and I was gifted a rare Australian Machete Bayonet.  So now I'm on the hunt for a P1907 bayonet that is period correct for 1918.  Money.

Dorsai posted:
MAC19D posted:

Stop it you guys.  Really.  Shit.  

You bunch of fuckers have cost me thousands of dollars over the years.  Now, it's swords. 

Jeez what next....stealth fighters?  

 

Sigh.  I have a really nice Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk111* dated 1918.  I have the short P1943 "jungle" bayonet that was introduced in WWII, and I was gifted a rare Australian Machete Bayonet.  So now I'm on the hunt for a P1907 bayonet that is period correct for 1918.  Money.

20190828_18083020190828_180758

Like this one?

Attachments

Images (4)
  • 20190828_180830
  • 20190828_180758
  • 20190828_180830
  • 20190828_180758
Last edited by Community Member
DirtySanchez posted:
SPDSNYPR posted:

I don’t think we have one single bayonet at the PD. Obviously I’m a bad person. 

 

A long time ago, at my last agency, I got us some M590A1s.  I pointed out the bayonet lug on them, and demonstrated it to the Chief.  He said "NO". 

I’m not exactly sure how, but that’s racist against bayonets somehow. Sue somebody. Just not me.

I was out of town for 3 days for a counter-ambush instructor school (Barritus Defense - lots of fun except all the running a fat, old guy had to do). When I came back, there's a huge box outside of my office door.  Has my last name on it,but I don't recall ordering anything except rifle slings.

Open it up . . . . . there's a fucken' wood viking shield in it with a hammered-steel boss and leather-wrapped edge. Nobody in the immediate area has claimed they got it for me. Well, now I'm at work and have a viking shield but no sword or helmet with me. Plus it's friday and it's raining out, so not sure I want to take all that bare steel out in the rain. 

Gotta find whoever bought or made this and thank them. 

Dorsai posted:
MAC19D posted:

Stop it you guys.  Really.  Shit.  

You bunch of fuckers have cost me thousands of dollars over the years.  Now, it's swords. 

Jeez what next....stealth fighters?  

 

Sigh.  I have a really nice Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk111* dated 1918.  I have the short P1943 "jungle" bayonet that was introduced in WWII, and I was gifted a rare Australian Machete Bayonet.  So now I'm on the hunt for a P1907 bayonet that is period correct for 1918.  Money.

Sometimes, I'm an idiot.  I had a  1943 Lithgow Lee-Enfield years ago.  I had the short P1943 bayonet...  Then.  When I got my BSA SMLE, I got a P1907 with it...which I forgot.  Until after I won one on Ebay.  A very nice Sanderson in a 1943 Australian Mangrovite scabbard.  So after getting the email that I had won the auction, I pulled the SMLE out of the safe, and the bayonet, which I had remembered as a P1943.  Sigh, it's an Australian 1943 as well.  



David Reeves,

I was halfway wrong about your bayonet.  Yours is a Pattern 1913 bayonet for the Enfield P14 and later, the US M1917 Enfield.  The Pattern 1913 is identical to the Pattern 1907 except for the height of the ring on the guard.  It is longer than the P1907, enough that they aren't interchangeable.  Your grip also has the two grooves that were cut into them to identify it as the P1913 instead of the P1907.  The scabbard is Australian P1907.  You can tell by the 3 rivets above the frog stud.

20190828_180758

Dorsai posted:
Dorsai posted:
MAC19D posted:

Stop it you guys.  Really.  Shit.  

You bunch of fuckers have cost me thousands of dollars over the years.  Now, it's swords. 

Jeez what next....stealth fighters?  

 

Sigh.  I have a really nice Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk111* dated 1918.  I have the short P1943 "jungle" bayonet that was introduced in WWII, and I was gifted a rare Australian Machete Bayonet.  So now I'm on the hunt for a P1907 bayonet that is period correct for 1918.  Money.

Sigh, it's an Australian 1943 as well.  




Same-same...but  keep in mind Coriolis force.

I'm in due to being a sucker for Zombie Tools  ( https://wwwdotzombietools.net ) marketing and picked up a 'Reaver Cleaver' (yup, Firefly/Serenity fan also) awhile back. Pretty much a Chinese Dadao (translation is 'big knife') 18" blade, 31" overall.

rever-cleaver

But being the paranoid prepared guy I am, I figured, what if the zombies are on horses, or even worse, zombie horses, so I needed a Padao (translation is 'horse chopping knife').  25" blade, 52" overall.

padao

Attachments

Images (2)
  • rever-cleaver
  • padao
Last edited by Community Member

Add Reply

Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2020
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×